Житие Иродиона Илоезерского: Агиография Белозерского уезда XVI–XVII веков
The article is devoted to the problem of or- ganization of a productive dialogue between represent- atives of different sciences during the comprehensive interdisciplinary research of man in the context of tra- ditional culture. The prerequisites to the given prob- lem statement have been formed during a long-term experience of joint field studies made by the authors in Russia (Adygea, Russian North, Bashkiria, Buryat- ia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia, Khakassia, Ya- kutia and other regions) and Mexico, as well as through the analysis of relevant results of academic and re- search work. As a solution of the given task, the authors develop the methodological construction “metaposi- tion” that allows to approach to complexity and inter- disciplinarity of research through the principle of dia- logue in the common sociocultural field. Metaposition as a technology of organization of polyprofessional co- operation of different experts in a common research space is aimed at development of scientists’ skills of fix- ation, systematization and representation of the re- sults of their work taking into account positions of their colleagues from other subject areas. Realization of this technology leads to creation of a metalanguage and to widening of researcher’s scientific culture (theoreti- cal frames of each expert, style of their scientific reason- ing and personal qualities). The development of meta- position as a stable system of cooperation between different positions of researchers suggests three inter- related stages: defining the research’s common field; re- vealing the borders of scientific positions; constructing the interpositional dialogue. Opportunities of applica- tion of the methodological construction “metaposition” at different stages of field research (before the field, at the field, after the field, during analysis of the field data) are concretized through a relevant algorithm and sup- ported by examples from the field practice.
The article considers four approaches to the interpretation of images and mythologems from the sphere of Western esotericism in mass culture. The first approach is based on the depth psychology of C. G. Jung and aims to identify archetypes common to the whole culture. The second is based on the reductionist theories of Marx and Freud, its main task is to reduce religious imagery to social and psychological realities. The third approach is represented by C. Partridge theory of occulture, in which the emphasis is made on tracing the historical genesis of esoteric imagery in modern culture. The fourth approach is expressed in the writings of J. Kripal, it synthesizes the historicism of the theory of occulture with the understanding of mass culture as a way of self-knowledge, revealing the deep spiritual essence of man
Why do we rather disagree than agree with each other? Why are people more likely to have different opinions than one? Can different persons have different views and still be right, all of them? All of such naive, almost childish questions concern the human being as the interlocutor of the other person and as an accomplice to the truth. It may seem that a person’s subjectivity only impedes the truth. But without the former, the latter simply does not exist. In ages passed and gone, a dispute about everything took place in the invisible presence of the Absolute (God, Spirit, Truth, History); today we have nobody else to appeal than another person (interlocutor, judge, expert, voter…). Such an appeal ad hominem, so proper to human beings, however, has always been strictly forbidden by logic and is still regarded as unacceptable discursive behaviour. Philosophy, in its search for the truth, alternatively turned its back on man, then again turned to him. In the second half of the twentieth century, logic (as the normative science of thought) began to adapt to those “too human” areas of thought where the appeal to the “man”, ad hominem, is absolutely inevitable (res publica or “human affairs”),— in the form of “informal logic”, “logic of argumentation”, etc. But under different names, the “turn to the human being” is practically coextensive of philosophy — from Socrates through Kant to neopragmatism (and so on), which does not cancel its regular rejection of “humanism” as a kind of (anti) philosophical religion of man.
Thus, the book focuses on the problem of the relationship between truth and man. The man always acted both as a subjective obstacle to the truth, and as its obligatory condition. Having chosen the ad hominem argument as a red thread, the author traces (in six separate albeit intertwined chapters) some historical and philosophical moments of this relationship — since the (constituent for the philosophy) separation from sophistry, through the complex history of the ad hominem argument and the emergence of the transcendentalist tradition to the debates on humanism in the twentieth century.
This article examines the role of archivists in shaping the capacity and the structure of a university’s memory. Drawing on sources such as laws and ministerial instructions, the authors analyze the government’s archive policy with regard to universities and how professors and archivists were taking part in its implementation. Their participation included sorting documents and attributing them to individual ‘cases’, destroying some of the ‘unnecessary’ documents and preserving others that were designated for destruction. Based on information from service records and university reports, the article tracks changes in the corporate status of university archivists in nineteenth-century Russia.
The book addresses a wide audience interested in the history of art and art market in the 20th and 21st centuries, as well as scholars specialising in cultural studies and art economy.